Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Jury Members Discuss Thought Process Behind Apple vs. Samsung Verdict
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Manuel Ilagan, that is NOT evidence in regards to what you were supposed to decided on.
Apparently Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi for Sierra Mist because they decided they want a lemon-lime soda like Sprite.
If that was the only evidence, you'd be right, but here (briefly speaking) was Apple's case.
Here are our patents.
Here are Samsung's products, see all these points where it infringes on our patents, and see how those aspects didn't appear in Samsung products before the iPhone.
Here is Samsung saying "Our phones don't measure up, see how they compare to the iPhone and what we need to change".
The email removes any possibility of accidental duplication, independent development (which while not a complete defense would make the violations non-willful).
That goodness I'm going to law school next year (GW). I wanna take advantage of this broken systemness!
I'm in law school, and I'm focusing on IP. Trust me, you'll learn that the whiners are wrong in most cases.
That's my point
Apple obtained these patents... and now they are defending them.
Anybody could have gotten these patents... but Apple got them instead.
While Samsung was still fooling around with terrible Windows Mobile phones that used a stylus... Apple was busy patenting cool new interface features like pinch-to-zoom and the rubberband effect.
Samsung's first Android phone didn't even come out until 2009... while Apple obtained a patent on the rubberband effect in 2007.
Apple went to Samsung to try to get them to license these patents in 2010... but Samsung wasn't interested.
And Samsung got sued.
I don't want to play this game. I just believe they are unreasonable. Just one person's opinion.
Most opinions have some basis in fact. In my opinion, your lack of reasoning implies that you don't have any reasoning behind your opinion.
Well for me - trade dress patents seem to be completely inappropriate use of patents. Patents are about protecting processes and actions, ways of solving problems. Trade dress is appearance, so would fall under trademarks and copyrights.
I do think the utility patents are reasonable, assuming they meet the legal standard of originality (and I don't know enough to say for sure if they do or don't).
Protection=Innovation
And the purpose of patents is to give a temporary monopoly! If it wasn't for patent law, companies would innovate too little, because it would be too easy to copy each others inventions.[/QUOTE]
-----------------------------------------
Exactly. It's this protection that ENCOURAGES innovation. Why would anyone spend a great deal of time, money, and effort to innovate if they knew that anyone could come along and simply copy what they did to make a profit?
And the purpose of patents is to give a temporary monopoly! If it wasn't for patent law, companies would innovate too little, because it would be too easy to copy each others inventions.[/QUOTE]
-----------------------------------------
Exactly. It's this protection that ENCOURAGES innovation. Why would anyone spend a great deal of time, money, and effort to innovate if they knew that anyone could come along and simply copy what they did to make a profit?
Last edited:
This Would Encourage Innovation
I would think this would encourage innovation, it keeps companies from copying Apple and forces them to actually invest in R & D and innovate solutions, instead of mearly saying, "do what Apple did in the iPhone"
I would think this would encourage innovation, it keeps companies from copying Apple and forces them to actually invest in R & D and innovate solutions, instead of mearly saying, "do what Apple did in the iPhone"
Trade dress is NOT a patent. And I don't know your background, but I can understand your confusion based on how these disputes are handled in the media. Trade dress is much like a trademark. The standard for these is much lower than a patent. I beleive this was a trade dress on the iPhone 3g/3gs design. That basically means that if someone that makes a phone that looks like it, then it is infringement. You had the right idea. Trade dress isn't a use of the patent system. There are design patents though, but those also have different standards and weight than traditional patents.
You would feel different if somebody was making money off *your* idea...
This makes absolutely NO sense. Anyone that spends tens of millions of dollars to create a new product, patents it, and another company clearly copies it and makes money you should have made ... well, I'd be pretty dang hot about it.
If it is allowed to copy a product, then there is no need for patents... just give away your ideas.
At least Microsoft was creative (what am i saying??) with Windows Phone. They came up with a different interface that separated them from the Google Android offerings. Samsung did not do this.
This makes absolutely NO sense. Anyone that spends tens of millions of dollars to create a new product, patents it, and another company clearly copies it and makes money you should have made ... well, I'd be pretty dang hot about it.
If it is allowed to copy a product, then there is no need for patents... just give away your ideas.
At least Microsoft was creative (what am i saying??) with Windows Phone. They came up with a different interface that separated them from the Google Android offerings. Samsung did not do this.
nah, it's moreso that I was just browsing... stated my feelings.. and don't want to spend my saturday afternoon arguing with you. Thanks.
There's obviously a decent segment of the population that believes software patent law needs some reform, to say none of the common arguments made are relevant is silly. Thanks for being condescending.
If by playing well with others, you mean allowing others to use their ideas to create products that directly compete with their own, that's silly. All of Samsung's arguments about how forcing them not to copy Apple's products would result in less innovation are patently ridiculous (pun intended). They will result in others haveing to do their own innovations instead of just copying features from their competitors.
This is a win for everyone except Samsung, who will now have to go hire real creative people instead of cloners.
Oh ok, you posted your opinion in a discussion forum but didn't expect discussion. Understandable...
Most of the complaints I've seen thrown at the patent system are silly and nonsensical.
Yeah man, Apple invented rounded corners. How dare anyone use rounded corners on industrial designs since the existence of the square?
For the love of Christ...
Apple is NOT a monopoly. They are far from it in really any area that they produce products. They have no market power, with the conceivable exception of the Ipad.
How can you say that? Do you know all the evidence which was presented by the two parties during the trial, or is your mind so simple that because an American company won a jury trial against a foreign company it must be a corrupt patriotic decision?
The compensation awarded for damages is pathetic and should be raised to more like $50-80B to send a message to the asian copyboys.
Additionally all Samsung consumer products should be banned in the WTO member countries for at least 60 years.
$1B is nothing for Samsung, they made much more than that stealing designs and ideas from innovative businesses (not only Apple).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EikcQs-Sxs0
Additionally all Samsung consumer products should be banned in the WTO member countries for at least 60 years.
$1B is nothing for Samsung, they made much more than that stealing designs and ideas from innovative businesses (not only Apple).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EikcQs-Sxs0
Don't forget, the judge can triple the damages if Apple asks!!
http://gigaom.com/2012/08/24/triple-damages-and-injunctions-what-next-for-apple-and-samsung/
Mark
The Economist touches on software patent law often, I wouldn't consider them silly and nonsensical.
www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/10/software-patents
www.economist.com/node/2043416
www.economist.com/node/15479680
www.economist.com/node/2698336
I suppose this may qualify as getting some of my information 'from some tech blog'.